What is the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture?

gotquestions.org ^ | unknown | Got Questions Ministries

[ealgeone]

Yeah, caucus threads. Where about five people post.

[ealgeone]

Apologies for the multiple posts.

[Biggirl]

Yet the peace is kept which is more important. Does not not matter how many post.

[Biggirl]

Why is context important?

[FatherofFive]

What does “This is my body” mean to you?

[af_vet_1981]

Notice the phrase “once and for all.”

I notice it is not there in Jude for the Authorized Version

ἅπαξ = hapax = once

There are fourteen occurrences of that Greek word in the scriptures, and unless I missed one, none of them are translated "once for all" in the KJV. Instead, there is another word off the same root which once, with KJV brackets is translated "once [for all]"
ἐφάπαξ = ephapax: which is "once [for all]" only once out of four occurrences.

Hebrews 10:10 Adv
GRK: Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐφάπαξ
NAS: of Jesus Christ once for all.
KJV: of Jesus Christ once [for all].
INT: of Jesus Christ once for all

If you substitute "once for all" for "once" in the following passage's modern English translation, and use that particular English translation to try to establish the assertion of the thread, then you have to explain
1. how the Authorized Version for Protestants had the wrong translation on such an important topic for over four hundred years,
2. how the faith was delivered "once for all" at the time Jude was written when perhaps five other books had not been written yet (John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation).

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Jude, Catholic chapter one, Protestant verse three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[Iscool]

Don't flatter yourself. Many of us have done those Bible studies when we were Protestants, so we also know you conflate "The Word of God" with the Bible without even thinking about it, let alone investigating it.

The Word of God is Jesus Christ...The word of God is the inspired words that Jesus/God provided to us...There is no conflating on my end...

[Iscool]

The only thing that need be considered here is how exactly like Social Justice Warriors you are like with assigning "worship" to the motivation of others in DIRECT contradiction to their own beliefs, testimonies, and explanations....

You may perfectly well believe that your religion doesn't worship Mary...The bible however shows us that your adoration for Mary is worship, regardless of what you believe...

[ealgeone]

Why is context important?

Excellent question.

Question: "Why is it important to study the Bible in context? What is wrong with taking verses out of context?"

Answer: It's important to study Bible passages and stories within their context. Taking verses out of context leads to all kinds of error and misunderstanding. Understanding context begins with four principles: literal meaning (what it says), historical setting (the events of the story, to whom is it addressed, and how it was understood at that time), grammar (the immediate sentence and paragraph within which a word or phrase is found) and synthesis (comparing it with other parts of Scripture for a fuller meaning). Context is crucial to biblical exegesis in that it is one of its most important fundamentals. After we account for the literal, historical, and grammatical nature of a passage, we must then focus on the outline and structure of the book, then the chapter, then the paragraph. All of these things refer to "context." To illustrate, it is like looking at Google Maps and zooming in on one house.

Taking phrases and verses out of context always leads to misunderstanding. For instance, taking the phrase "God is love" (1 John 4:7-16) out of its context, we might come away thinking that our God loves everything and everyone at all times with a gushing, romantic love. But in its literal and grammatical context, “love” here refers to agape love, the essence of which is sacrifice for the benefit of another, not a sentimental, romantic love. The historical context is also crucial, because John was addressing believers in the first century church and instructing them not on God’s love per se, but on how to identify true believers from false professors. True love—the sacrificial, beneficial kind—is the mark of the true believer (v. 7), those who do not love do not belong to God (v. 8), God loved us before we loved Him (vv. 9-10), and all of this is why we should love one another and thereby prove that we are His (v. 11-12).

Furthermore, considering the phrase "God is love" in the context of all of Scripture (synthesis) will keep us from coming to the false, and all-too-common, conclusion that God is only love or that His love is greater than all His other attributes, which is simply not the case. We know from many other passages that God is also holy and righteous, faithful and trustworthy, graceful and merciful, kind and compassionate, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, and many, many other things. We also know from other passages that God not only loves, but He also hates.

The Bible is the Word of God, literally "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16), and we are commanded to read, study, and understand it through the use of good Bible study methods and always with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit to guide us (1 Corinthians 2:14). Our study is greatly enhanced by maintaining diligence in the use of context because it is quite easy to come to wrong conclusions by taking phrases and verses out of context. It is not difficult to point out places that seemingly contradict other portions of Scripture, but if we carefully look at their context and use the entirety of Scripture as a reference, we can understand the meaning of a passage. “Context is king” means that the context often drives the meaning of a phrase. To ignore context is to put ourselves at a tremendous disadvantage.

https://www.gotquestions.org/context-Bible.html

[ealgeone]

What does “This is my body” mean to you?

14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. Luke 22:14-20 NASB

22While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25“Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Mark 14:22-25 NASB

In the OT the blood used in the sacrifice was never consumed. It was poured out.

The Greek for remembrance is ἀνάμνησιν {ἀνάμνησις (used both here in Luke and 1 Corinthians 11:24)}. Strong's defines this as a recalling, remembrance, memory.

When I partake of the Lord's Supper I am reminded of the sacrifice of His perfect life, His shed blood, His sufferings, He freely gave to cover my sins...all of my sins.

[Arthur McGowan]

Right.

All Catholics are SECRETLY taught to worship Mary, but, in an attempt to deceive Protestants, all Popes, councils, creeds, teaching documents, theologians, catechisms, and textbooks say the opposite.

[ealgeone]

I notice it is not there in Jude for the Authorized Version

ἅπαξ = hapax = once

Strong's defines the word to mean: once, once for all

You presume the KJV is the only rendering used by non-catholics.

how the faith was delivered "once for all" at the time Jude was written when perhaps five other books had not been written yet (John, 1 John, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation).

I think the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing as the Scriptures were being revealed to the writers.

[af_vet_1981]

In the OT the blood used in the sacrifice was never consumed. It was poured out.

Then Jesus said unto them,Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

John, Catholic chapter six, Protestant verses fifty three to fifty six,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[ealgeone]

And on the next day he got up and went away with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him. 24On the following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them and had called together his relatives and close friends.

25When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him.

26But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am just a man.” Acts 10:23-26 NASB

All Catholics are SECRETLY taught to worship Mary, but, in an attempt to deceive Protestants, all Popes, councils, creeds, teaching documents, theologians, catechisms, and textbooks say the opposite.

Mormons make a lot of excuses for what they as well.

[af_vet_1981]

Strong's defines the word to mean: once, once for all

For how many years has Strong's been the holy scriptures and for how many years has the Authorized Version not been the holy scriptures ?

[ealgeone]

Again proving the reason why context is so important in understanding the NT...especially John 6.

[ealgeone]

For how many years has Strong's been the holy scriptures and for how many years has the Authorized Version not been the holy scriptures ?

Strong's, as you well know, is a dictionary of the Greek terms.

I was posting the full range of the meaning of the word.

I also provide this definition for understanding.

60.68 ἅπαξb; ἐφάπαξb: a single occurrence to the exclusion of any other similar occurrence—‘once and for all, once and never again.’ ἅπαξb: νυνὶ δὲ ἅπαξ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων ‘and now once and for all at the end of the ages’ He 9:26; τῇ ἅπαξ παραδοθείσῃ τοῖς ἁγίοις πίστει ‘the faith given once and for all to God’s people’ Jd 3. ἐφάπαξb: τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ ἀπέθανεν ἐφάπαξ ‘he died to sin once and for all’ Ro 6:10. In a number of languages the equivalent of ‘once and for all’ is simply ‘once and not again’ or ‘once and not twice.’

Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 608). New York: United Bible Societies.

[Biggirl]

Thank-you for the scripture posting. God Bless.

[Biggirl]

Thank-you for the scripture posting. God Bless.

[ealgeone]

As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the bishops promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1,

Likewise I accept Sacred Scripture according to that sense which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers. — http://mb-soft.com/believe/txs/firstvc.htm

Yet as the Dominican cardinal and Catholic theologian Yves Congar O.P. states,

Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare...One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. — Yves M.-J. Congar, O.P., p. 71

And Catholic archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick (1806-1896), while yet seeking to support Peter as the rock, stated that,

“If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by the rock should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith.” — Speech of archbishop Kenkick, p. 109; An inside view of the vatican council, edited by Leonard Woolsey Bacon.

Your own CCC allows the interpretation that, “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424), for some of the ancients (for what their opinion is worth) provided for this or other interpretations.

hat tip to Elsie for the quotes